Choose from a wide range of NEWCV resume templates and customize your NEWCV design with a single click.
Use ATS-optimised Resume and resume templates that pass applicant tracking systems. Our Resume builder helps recruiters read, scan, and shortlist your Resume faster.
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create Resume
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create ResumeMost ATS resume mistakes are not obvious design errors. They happen when job seekers unintentionally break how applicant tracking systems read, parse, rank, and organize resume data. A resume can look polished to a human but still fail inside an ATS workflow.
The biggest ATS resume mistakes include using complex layouts, relying on graphics or text boxes, stuffing keywords unnaturally, choosing incompatible file formats, creating unreadable section structures, and using formatting that disrupts parsing logic.
The result is simple: recruiters may never see your application.
Modern ATS systems have improved significantly, but many candidates still optimize for appearance while ignoring machine readability and recruiter workflow behavior. The best resumes work for both systems simultaneously: structured enough for ATS parsing and readable enough for human decision-making.
This guide explains which ATS mistakes actually matter, why they happen, how recruiters experience them, and how to avoid hidden issues that reduce interview opportunities.
Many candidates imagine ATS systems as resume robots that automatically reject applications.
That is usually not how modern recruiting works.
Most applicant tracking systems function as workflow management platforms. Their purpose is to:
•Store candidate information
• Parse resumes into structured data
• Match candidate qualifications to job requirements
• Help recruiters filter and search applicants
• Organize hiring pipelines
• Surface potentially relevant candidates
The issue isn't that ATS software immediately rejects resumes.
The issue is that poor formatting and workflow errors create bad data.
If the system extracts information incorrectly, your profile becomes incomplete, difficult to search, or impossible to rank accurately.
Recruiters rarely investigate parsing failures manually.
When hundreds of applications arrive for one role, workflow speed wins.
Small formatting problems become visibility problems.
This remains one of the most common ATS mistakes.
Candidates often assume a visually organized resume automatically creates a better experience.
Instead, complex structures frequently create parsing confusion.
Examples include:
•Multi-column layouts
• Floating text boxes
• Sidebars
• Graphic containers
• Nested tables
• Design-heavy templates
ATS systems attempt to read resumes linearly.
When layouts become complicated, systems may read content in the wrong order.
Instead of:
Name
Experience
Skills
Education
The system may produce:
Skills
Random dates
Half of job title
Education
Partial company name
Recruiters then receive fragmented candidate information.
A resume can appear damaged even though the original document looked perfect.
Many job seekers misunderstand ATS optimization.
They think success means repeating terms as many times as possible.
This creates one of the biggest resume workflow failures.
Weak Example:
"Project management, project manager, project planning, project systems, project implementation, project workflow, project strategy."
This approach looks unnatural.
Modern systems increasingly analyze semantic relevance and contextual relationships—not just repetition.
Recruiters also immediately recognize keyword stuffing.
Good Example:
"Led cross-functional product launches across engineering and marketing teams using Agile project management frameworks."
This demonstrates:
•Real context
• Actual skills
• Natural language
• Relevant terminology
Effective ATS optimization means alignment—not repetition.
Mirror important language from the job description naturally inside experience and achievements.
Applicant tracking systems rely on recognizable structures.
Creative headings may look unique but often reduce parsing accuracy.
Problematic examples:
•Career Journey
• Where I've Worked
• Things I Know
• My Story
• Professional Snapshot
Standard labels perform better:
•Professional Experience
• Work Experience
• Skills
• Education
• Certifications
• Projects
Recruiting systems expect familiar organizational patterns.
Creativity in headings rarely improves outcomes.
Clarity usually wins.
Many online resume templates optimize for visual impact rather than hiring workflows.
This creates a hidden problem.
Candidates often choose templates based on:
•Color schemes
• Visual effects
• Layout uniqueness
• Design sophistication
Recruiters prioritize:
•Fast scanning
• Information hierarchy
• Clarity
• consistency
• decision speed
Hiring workflows happen quickly.
Recruiters may spend seconds reviewing early-stage applications.
Heavy visual design often creates friction instead of improving results.
This explains why modern platforms increasingly focus on balancing ATS compatibility with presentation quality.
Solutions such as NewCV attempt to remove this tradeoff by combining recruiter-readable structure, ATS-friendly formatting, AI-assisted workflow support, and modern visual presentation without forcing users to choose one over the other.
The goal is not plain resumes.
The goal is functional design.
File compatibility remains overlooked.
Candidates often assume every format behaves identically.
They do not.
Most ATS systems handle:
•DOCX
• PDF (when text-based)
Potentially problematic files include:
•Image PDFs
• Scanned PDFs
• PNG resumes
• JPG resumes
• Graphic exports
• Pages files
Some design tools accidentally create image-based PDFs.
Humans see a normal document.
ATS systems see a picture.
No parsing occurs.
Before applying:
•Highlight text inside your PDF
• Copy and paste content into a text editor
• Verify readability
If text cannot be selected properly, ATS systems may struggle.
ATS performance and recruiter performance overlap more than candidates realize.
Generic descriptions reduce both.
Weak experience bullets:
•Responsible for projects
• Managed team tasks
• Worked with customers
• Assisted operations
These fail because they lack:
•Searchable skills
• measurable impact
• context
• tools
• decision-making evidence
Stronger descriptions:
This helps:
•ATS keyword matching
• recruiter understanding
• hiring confidence
Specificity improves discoverability.
Candidates often place all skills inside one giant section.
This creates weaker contextual relevance.
Recruiters and systems increasingly evaluate where skills appear—not only whether they exist.
Better structure:
Skills section:
•SQL
• Python
• Tableau
• Salesforce
Experience section:
"Built SQL reporting workflows reducing manual reporting time by 45%."
Context reinforces credibility.
Skills become evidence.
Modern resume designs frequently include:
•Skill bars
• icons
• charts
• logos
• rating systems
• visual percentages
These create parsing risk.
ATS systems process text better than graphics.
Skill bars are especially problematic.
Example:
Java ██████████
The system may extract:
Java
Or:
██████
Or nothing.
Recruiters also dislike subjective visual scales.
A "90% leadership score" has no hiring meaning.
Text wins.
Candidates often search for ATS tricks.
Examples include:
•Hidden keywords
• White text keyword stuffing
• Invisible paragraphs
• Metadata manipulation
• Copying job descriptions entirely
These tactics create problems.
Recruiters increasingly review application quality signals.
Systems also evolve.
Manipulation strategies rarely improve hiring outcomes long-term.
Good ATS optimization is workflow optimization.
Make information easy to parse.
Make qualifications easy to find.
Make recruiter decisions easier.
Candidates sometimes optimize entirely for ATS software.
This creates robotic resumes.
Recruiters hire people—not databases.
A resume should still communicate:
•outcomes
• judgment
• leadership
• business impact
• problem solving
• context
ATS compatibility should support readability—not replace it.
The highest-performing resumes sit in the middle:
Machine-readable enough for systems.
Human-readable enough for decision-makers.
Many articles repeat simplistic ideas:
•Use keywords
• Avoid graphics
• Save as PDF
• Use standard fonts
The deeper issue is workflow friction.
Recruiters do not experience resumes as static documents.
They experience them through hiring systems.
Every parsing failure creates downstream friction:
•Missing experience
• incomplete candidate profiles
• bad search visibility
• filtering problems
• slower evaluation
Candidates often think ATS optimization is technical.
In reality, it is operational.
Better workflow equals better visibility.
Before submitting a resume:
•Use standard section labels
• Keep layouts simple
• Use one-column structures when possible
• Include job-relevant terminology naturally
• Save in compatible formats
• Verify PDF text extraction
• Write measurable accomplishments
• Integrate skills into work examples
• Remove unnecessary graphics
• Review readability manually
Then perform one final test:
Copy resume content into plain text.
If structure collapses completely, ATS systems may struggle too.
Applicant tracking systems continue evolving.
Keyword matching alone is becoming less important.
Recruiting platforms increasingly evaluate:
•semantic relevance
• skill relationships
• contextual understanding
• candidate data quality
• workflow usability
Candidates focusing only on ATS hacks may optimize for outdated systems.
Modern resume strategy increasingly combines:
•machine readability
• recruiter usability
• workflow efficiency
• strong information architecture
• clear professional storytelling
The goal is not beating ATS systems.
The goal is helping systems and recruiters understand you quickly.
Upload Resume
Import from Linkedin
